JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.42/2010 whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 29.3.2010 of Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur rejecting the IInd bail application filed under Section 12 of the Act in Criminal Case No.138/2009 for offence under Sections 395, 396 and 201 IPC, had been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned order. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 26.5.2009 at 8.00 a.m. Girdhari was telephonically informed by Damodar that some unknown persons after killing his son Deewan Singh, had fled with his tractor. On this information, FIR No.82/2009 was registered in Police Station Halena under Sections 302, 392 and 201 IPC. 4. The revisionist being a juvenile, after being taken into custody was remanded to Juvenile Home on 15.6.2009. His IInd bail application was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur vide order dated 29.3.2010. 5. Appeal preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur against the said order, was also dismissed vide impugned order. 6. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal preferred on behalf of juvenile, observed that the petitioner along with other accused persons was involved in commission of serious offences and the circumstances showed that by his release, there was all possibility of his coming into association with known criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. Petitioner's father, present in the court was also heard. 8. Opposing the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that besides the present case registered at Police Station Halena, there were other two cases registered against the petitioner along with same set of co-accused at Salaimpur and Bhusawar police stations being 82/2009 and 149/2009 respectively, for offences under Sections 457/380 and 386, 352, 504/34 IPC. Further that co-accused Mukesh and Rajendra, were common with petitioner in the three cases. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, argued that in the case registered on FIR No.82/2009 at Salaimpur, the petitioner had been acquitted in March 2010. 10. Considered these arguments. 11. Further that co-accused Mukesh and Rajendra, were common with petitioner in the three cases. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, argued that in the case registered on FIR No.82/2009 at Salaimpur, the petitioner had been acquitted in March 2010. 10. Considered these arguments. 11. The case diaries of the other cases were also perused. In all the three cases, Rajendra, Mukesh and the petitioner were accused. 12. Involvement of the petitioner along with other accused persons in several other cases, clearly shows that the petitioner along with his gang mates has been involved in these kind of incidents. The father of the petitioner present in person had been specifically asked the question as to how his minor remained out of the house during the intervening night of 25th and 26th of May 2009. He had no answer. He also could not tell the names of any of the friends of his son (present petitioner). This clearly shows that the petitioner does not appear to be in the control of his parents. 13. This is not a stage to see the merits of the case. The only issue before this Court, at this moment, is that whether it is in the interest of child/petitioner to release him on bail or not. 14. Section 12(1) of 'the Act' reads as under: "12. Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice." 15. It is clear from above that the provisions of Section 12 are not mandatory, and that the Court has discretion in the matters like the present one. It is clear from above that the provisions of Section 12 are not mandatory, and that the Court has discretion in the matters like the present one. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, the Court can refuse to release the juvenile on bail. The paramount interest is of the child and when such circumstances exist, the court has to be very careful as his release may adversely affect him and his future. 16. In these circumstances, it is clear to suggest that the petitioner appears to be involved with same set of criminals and, therefore, there is a strong possibility that if he is released on bail, he would go back to the known criminals and is likely to be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Further that his release would also defeat the ends of justice. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to accept this revision petition of the petitioner filed against the impugned order dated 19.4.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur.For the reasons mentioned herein above, the revision petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******